A Woman was Held 20% Contributorily Negligent in Motor Vehicle Accident Case

Judge Basten held at paragraph 4 that:

“There was a “dangerous situation” because

• a queue of stationary vehicles were not visible to a driver until within 50-65m;
• the existence of the queue could not have been anticipated by reasonable drivers taking care for their safety;
• it was not necessary for a driver to drive at less 60 km/h where the speed limit was 90 km/h and there was no sign advising a lower speed limit and
• a car driving at 60 km/h could not stop in time without difficulty.”

Judge Kirk held at paragraph 6:

“The issue here was whether the distance in time and space between the insured driver’s collision and the appellant’s accident was such as to take the appellant outside of the class of road users to whom the duty was owed. It did not. The consequences of the original collision were still in play. The appellant suffered physical injury, being a risk of harm of a kind that was certainly reasonably foreseeable, and which the insured driver should have had in contemplation.”

It was determined that the risk must be assessed from the time of the original accident, rather than by referring to the precise circumstances in which the risk materialised. The “dangerous situation” caused by the insured driver in the original accident was held to be ongoing.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, you should always seek advice from a lawyer about your rights. Speak to one of our expert solicitors at Gerard Malouf & Partners Compensation Lawyers on 1800 004 878 for a free, no obligation consultation or complete our email enquiry form.